Saturday, March 21, 2009

What is important is the story. Richardson died after falling and hitting her head on a ski slope in Canada. She was on a bunny slope, fell and hit her head and was carried back to the ski lodge.

This one hits close to home because the same thing happened to my wife (who's fate, it turns out, was much more fortunate than Natasha's). On the level surface right near the ski lift, my wife fell directly on her head and had to be carried on a stretcher to the first aid station...she had a concussion but after a few hours she was okay.

Not so for Richardson.

It is sad that in such a place as Canada, in the province of Quebec, that they don't have a modern MEDEVAC capability. If they had, she might still be alive.

NEW YORK – As a steady stream of celebrities pay their last respects to Natasha Richardson, questions are arising over whether a medical helicopter might have been able to save the ailing actress.

The province of Quebec lacks a medical helicopter system, common in the United States and other parts of Canada, to airlift stricken patients to major trauma centers. Montreal's top head trauma doctor said Friday that may have played a role in Richardson's death.

We here in the States, despite all of our problems, don't know how good we have it.

It seems that everyone is aghast at the AIG bonuses and in favor of taxing every single employee of any financial institution up the wazoo, but it seems there are a few folks with level heads (not many in Congress though. Those guys are sub-human).

Friday, March 20, 2009

I'm all for sticking it to greedy executives of companies who made buttloads of money at our expense. But guess what? Most of those guys (and yes, they're always men) are long gone. And so is the money. We'll never get justice from those guys.

But this bill, HR 1586, just passed by the House, overwhelmingly I might add, is atrocious. Each and every politician who voted for it must be considered a public bafoon.

Here's why. (Oh, there are so many reasons this bill is bad.)

First off, this was clearly a ploy to leverage the public outrage over the AIG bonuses that had already been planned, agreed on, and paid. President Obama did nobody any favors on this one, either, by saying that he was sending his dumbass attack dog, tax evader extraordinaire, Timothy Geithner (is that a Nazi name?) to the front lines to figure out how to stop the AIG bonuses from being paid.

So the constitutionality of the bill is in question. I'm no legal scholar, but this might fall under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

Constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder. states that "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." A bill of attainder is an act passed by a state or federal legislature that punishes a specific person or group without a trial. In determining whether a piece of legislation violates the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, the Supreme Court generally tests whether the act specifies a group of people, contains a punishment specifically for that group of people, and does not require a trial. Given that criteria, this legislation could be ruled unconstitutional for imposing a tax penalty on a specific group of individuals.

I understand the public outrage. I do. But "Mob mentality" got us into this mess; I doubt it's going to get us out.

Another point to be brought up here is the fact that this bill is poorly worded. Again, I'm no legal scholar, but last time I checked, a "person" is not a "corporation." Yes, I do remember Business Law in college, and I do remember that corporations have the same legal standing as an individual. Corporations are legal entities. But this bill says,

(A) any person who receives after December 31, 2007, capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,000,000,

(B) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,

(C) any person who is a member of the same affiliated group (as defined in section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined without regard to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b)) as a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), and

(D) any partnership if more than 50 percent of the capital or profits interests of such partnership are owned directly or indirectly by one or more persons described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

I haven't received ANY TARP money, but the company I work for has. Last time I looked, Bank of America, Chase, Wells, and Citigroup were not people or persons.

By the way, my company was strong-armed into taking the money by Henry Paulson. Now, Chase could pay the money back and my particular issue would be moot, but this bill would still penalize folks who don't necessarily deserve it. More on that in a bit.

This is a so-called "Executive bonus tax." Guess what? The tax in this bill is applicable to married couples who make $250,000. In California, that's not really unheard of, even for "non-executives." Bottom line: Your salary does not determine whether you're an executive or not. Simply moving up in the ranks and being a middle manager over the course of 20 years could get you lumped into the same box as a true "executive" (you know, a guy or gal making "executive decisions" not the guy deciding whether the company letterhead ought to be in Verdana or Sans Serif font).

Contrary to the media and government representation that this is a tax on "bonuses," it is clearly much more than that.

In fact, it's not about the bonus at all; it's about the income. Look at this passage:

(1) IN GENERAL- The term `TARP bonus' means, with respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser of--

(A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or

(B) the excess of--

(i) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year, over

(ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

What does this mean to you? Again, I'm no Jacoby & Myers, but I read this to mean that if you work for a company that got TARP funds (hear me, Detroit?), you're married, you make $30,000 a year, and your spouse makes $1,000,000 a year, guess what?

You get taxed at 90 percent on $750,000 PLUS the "normal" marginal rate on the first $250,000!

Is this fucked or what? Am I reading that right? I know the dolts in Congress aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, but do they read this shit? Who writes it?

I have a really hard time believing that they'll tax people like this, but this is what the verbiage says, no?

And if this passes into law (read this, Obama), the US Treasury (IRS) gets to "interpret" it. You think they have an open mind on this? They want their money back!

Hey, Treasury! Just because you gave money away with no strings, don't get all pissy at poor working Joe and try to take his money.

Here's some background. I work for a financial institution that was taken over by the FDIC and then given to another bank. This other bank had to keep the wheels turning, so they offered me and a lot of other folks an incentive to stay. This goes all the way back to October 2008.

They had to retain the talent, else bank operations conducted by WaMu might get totally out of whack. In essence, the employees made a deal with the bank. This is before the bank got any TARP funds.

Had we known our incentive would be wiped clear, we could have started looking for other employment 6 months ago, when the job market was better. As you know, the labor market is a lagging indicator, and it's gotten worse, even if the economy has stabilized (questionable at this point).

So we've actually been put in a nut wrench because we have a lower likelihood of finding a job. Plus, our "incentive" may turn out to be a small fraction of what was promised to us.

I don't see where the government thinks it can break a contract between an employee and a private company (publicly traded, but certainly a private enterprise).

I know, it's "for the good of the country." Bullshit. It's because Congress and the President want to grandstand and proclaim that they were "on the side of the people." But you know what? It's people like me and my peers, white-collar working stiffs, just trying to do our jobs, and having nothing to do with the crackpots on crackpipes who got us into this mess, that are going to pay most dearly for it all.

Not only are many of our houses underwater due to the financial shenanigans our "leaders" pulled off (and don't forget Congress and the repeal of banking regulations in the late 90s), but we're about to be jobless and get robbed of what was coming to us.

I don't care where you stand on "executive bonuses." I am NOT an executive, yet I may get slapped with a marginal tax rate the likes I have never seen (back in the Kennedy days). And this is NOT a tax on bonuses. It's a tax on success.

If Congress passes this and President Obama signs it into law, they are no better than the last set of politicians we voted (mostly) out of office.

The rule of law is what this country was founded on. That, and the entrepreneurial spirit. Self-interest with prudent oversight. Capitalism. Middle class rising up.

Media reports said the mother left the baby in a bathroom waste bin on the Pacific Blue plane carrying 150 passengers; others said she was spotted with bloodied clothes in an immigration line. Police have declined comment on the reports.

What the hell was she thinking? Obviously, on one level, she wasn't. But on another level...did she think nobody would notice?

Fat lady walks in bathroom

Thin, smelly, stinky lady walks out

Really? You didn't think anyone would spot that?

You're not only fucked in the head, you're worse than a bitch, you're a murderer (or at least you tried), and you're stupid.

Jaguar and Buick surged to the top of J.D. Power and Associates' closely watched vehicle dependability study this year, tying for the No. 1 spot and dethroning Lexus for the first time since the Japanese luxury brand has been a part of the survey.

NotYourDaddy presents Looting the Economy posted at Government is not your Daddy., saying, "We need to restore productivity, not just have government hire more people and create more bureaucracies to employ them. We need to create value, not pump more money into the economy, which only serves to devalue the money already in circulation. We cannot borrow our way out of debt, nor spend our way into solvency. We need to return to the basic foundations on which this once-great nation was built: hard work, self-reliance, entrepreneurship, industry, and personal responsibility."

I agree, but it's in the approach where we differ. Right now, IMHO, we need the government to fill in where private enterprise won't or can't. It's the only way out. On the backside of this thing though, once the economic ship rights itself, we need a period of government SURPLUS. Don't let the GOP abuse it with "tax cuts."

It's how we run our households, right? Lose a job, and for a bit, run up the budget deficit. Things turn around, build up a surplus. It's really very simple. Government should do the same thing.

Problem is, people want their pet projects, but they want somebody else to pay for them. AND, we let them get away with it.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

President Obama is continually nominating and appointing idiots and crooks. Here's the latest -

He appointed Vivek Kundra, Washington, D.C.'s chief technology officer, to the position of federal chief information officer last week. Now, Kundra's office has been raided. Apparently, two of his subordinates have been implicated in a bribery scheme.

Acar worked for Kundra as an information systems security officer with responsibility for government contracts. A number of requests for bids posted on the District's Web site list Acar as "responsible for general administration of the contract" and "responsible for the day-to-day monitoring and supervision of the contract, of ensuring that the work conforms to the requirements of this contract."

New York schools outside of New York City spend more per student than any state in the nation – an estimated $18,768 in 2008-09. New York’s per student spending is more than 50 percent above the national average."

I'll say it here and now: It's too little. When all is said and done, we'll find that the "stimulus" cost $4 trillion. Mark my words. Oh, and that's only if we dig ourselves out of the mess that's been made the last 8, 10, 20, 40 years!!!

David Gross presents Reflections on the coronation posted at The Picket Line, saying, "I am embarrassed for my friends and my country that we still enthusiastically install royalty at such great expense at this late date after the success of our revolution. And unlike the former monarchies which have devolved into republics and divested their crowns of significant power, we seem largely determined to attach all of our hopes and most of our sovereignty onto our king (or even, as the last eight years showed, some court jester).

The people have spoken. If the people had any sense of shame or any self-awareness, they’d shut the fuck up. They’ve been speaking for a long time now and casting terrible, hateful imprecations that have called forth demons that they refuse to accept responsibility for or attempt to control."

Len Penzo presents I'm Just Askin': Why Bother Being Fiscally Responsible Anymore? posted at Len Penzo . Com, saying, "Obama's $75B housing rescue plan makes suckers out of those of us who have been wise enough to make sure we lived within our means. So what do we get out of the deal? We now get to subsidize the irresponsible people that bought more house than they could afford! Welcome to the wonderful world of Socialism!"

Socialism? Can that same label be applied to the corporate bailouts? Giving tax money to large corporations? Pet projects? Didn't we spend more tax dollars on pork and pet projects over the last 8 years?

Seth Manapio presents Stupid and Unhappy posted at Whiskey Before Breakfast... the Blog, saying, "Who was drinking the stupid juice when the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan was concieved? Even a Rush Limbaugh hating non-conservative like myself can see the fatal flaws in this one."

I watched the Republican rebuttal to President Obama's State of the State (was that what it was called?) the other night and thought he came out with some good points (Government spends too much, Government thinks we're idiots, Government is the problem, etc.), but then it got ridiculous.

There was a childlike quality to Jindal's speech and at times I couldn't tell if he was trying to talk to children or if he was the child himself.

I mean, it seemed like he thinks the American people are too simple to listen to intelligent debate, and in some cases I think he's right. I often think we, as a society, are simply idiots.

But Jindal's speech was over the top. Now, I find out, one of the most compelling points to the idiots in the crowd, the part about his sheriff yelling at a federal bureaucrat over the phone during the Katrina episode, was - get this -

MADE UP

FABRICATION

DIDN'T HAPPEN

Gotta love politicians! They make shit up all the time and expect us simpletons to believe it. They're more crass than preachers in the tent.

Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night -- about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?

Music

LinkShare

MyBlogLog

Networks

MP3 Clips

Who Am I?

I subscribe to real conservatism: Small, non-intrusive government that believes in fiscal responsibility and deference to state's rights. I believe in the Constitution and everything that goes along with it, including the ability and necessity to change it when conditions warrant doing so.